Clinical versus sonographic estimation of foetal weight in southwest Nigeria

被引:1
作者
Shittu, Akinola S.
Kuti, Oluwafemi
Orji, Ernest O.
Makinde, Niyi O.
Ogunniyi, Solomon O.
Ayoola, Oluwagbemiga O.
Sule, Salami S.
机构
[1] Obafwmi Aqolowo Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Ife, Nigeria
[2] Obafwmi Aqolowo Univ, Dept Radiol, Ife, Nigeria
[3] Obafwmi Aqolowo Univ, Dept Community Hlth, Ife, Nigeria
[4] Teaching Hosp Complex, Osun State, Nigeria
关键词
foetal weight; birth-weight; ultrasonography; pregnancy; delivery; prospective studies; comparative studies; Nigeria; BIRTH-WEIGHT; ULTRASOUND ESTIMATION; MATERNAL CHARACTERISTICS; FUNDAL HEIGHT; TERM; ACCURACY; PREDICTION; PREGNANCY; PARTURIENTS; MACROSOMIA;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
A prospective study was conducted at Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, IleIfe, Nigeria, between 3 January and 3 1 May 2004, to compare the accuracy of clinical and ultrasonographic estimation of foetal weight at term. One hundred pregnant women who fulfilled the inclusion criteria had their foetal weight estimated independently using clinical and ultrasonographic methods. Accuracy was determined by percentage error, absolute percentage error, and proportion of estimates within 10% of actual birth-weight (birth-weight of +10%). Statistical analysis was done using the paired t-test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the chi-square test. The study sample had an actual average birthweight of 3,255+622 (range 2,150-4,950) g. Overall, the clinical method overestimated birth-weight, while ultrasound underestimated it. The mean absolute percentage error of the clinical method was smaller than that of the sonographic method, and the number of estimates within 10% of actual birthweight for the clinical method (70%) was greater than for the sonographic method (68%); the difference was not statistically significant. In the low birth-weight (<2,500 g) group, the mean errors of sonographic estimates were significantly smaller, and significantly more sonographic estimates (66.7%) were within 10% of actual birth-weight than those of the clinical method (41.7%). No statistically significant difference was observed in all the measures of accuracy for the normal birth-weight range of 2,500-<4,000 g and in the macrosonic group (. :4,000 g), except that, while the ultrasonographic method underestimated birth-weight, the clinical method overestimated it. Clinical estimation of birth-weight is as accurate as routine ultrasonographic estimation, except in low-birth-weight babies. Therefore, when the clinical method suggests weight smaller than 2,500 g, subsequent sonographic estimation is recommended to yield a better prediction and to further evaluate foetal well-being.
引用
收藏
页码:14 / 23
页数:10
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]   THE CHEEK-TO-CHEEK DIAMETER IN THE ULTRASONOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF FETAL GROWTH [J].
ABRAMOWICZ, JS ;
SHERER, DM ;
BARTOV, E ;
WOODS, JR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1991, 165 (04) :846-852
[2]  
ABRAMSON JH, 1999, COMPUTER PROGRAMME E
[3]  
Airede A I, 1995, West Afr J Med, V14, P116
[4]  
Baum JD, 2002, J REPROD MED, V47, P194
[5]   SONOGRAPHICALLY ESTIMATED FETAL WEIGHTS - ACCURACY AND LIMITATION [J].
BENACERRAF, BR ;
GELMAN, R ;
FRIGOLETTO, FD .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1988, 159 (05) :1118-1121
[6]  
BOSSAK WS, 1972, J REPROD MED, V9, P58
[7]   ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT OF FETAL ABDOMEN CIRCUMFERENCE IN ESTIMATION OF FETAL WEIGHT [J].
CAMPBELL, S ;
WILKIN, D .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1975, 82 (09) :689-697
[8]  
Cecatti J G, 2000, Cad Saude Publica, V16, P1083, DOI 10.1590/S0102-311X2000000400026
[9]   Limitations of clinical sonographic estimates of birth weight: Experience with 1034 parturients [J].
Chauhan, SP ;
Hendrix, NW ;
Magann, EF ;
Morrison, JC ;
Kenney, SP ;
Devoe, LD .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1998, 91 (01) :72-77
[10]  
CHAUHAN SP, 1992, OBSTET GYNECOL, V79, P956